| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: linked list rewrite |
| Date: | 2004-03-24 05:37:49 |
| Message-ID: | 633F3792-7D55-11D8-8EB3-000A95AB279E@samurai.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On 23-Mar-04, at 10:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> How do you mean it's no longer the case? ListCell looks exactly like a
> cons cell to me.
Sorry, thinko on my part. I meant to say that lcons() is a Lispy name,
which suggests a Lispy implementation. This is no longer the case.
While lcons() isn't that bad of a name, I think it is more confusing
than it is helpful.
It just doesn't strike me that "construction" is a very useful way to
talk about what this operation is actually doing, and is asymmetric
with lappend() for no good reason. The operation is "prepending" an
element to an existing list, so why not give it a name that reflects
that?
-Neil
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bill C. | 2004-03-24 05:48:23 | Problems getting started: createdb fails |
| Previous Message | Grant Allen | 2004-03-24 04:53:40 | Re: ole db |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-03-24 06:10:20 | Re: linked list rewrite |
| Previous Message | Sailesh Krishnamurthy | 2004-03-24 04:26:10 | Re: subversion vs cvs |